Synthetic sickness or lethality points at candidate combination therapy targets in glioblastoma

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 133, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 2123-2132

  Szczurek, Ewa ^a,b   Misra, Navodit ^a   Vingron, Martin ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR MOLECULAR GENETICS   (Germany)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

combination therapy; glioblastoma; synthetic sickness or lethality

Indexed keywords

AKT1 PROTEIN; AKT3 PROTEIN; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR; POLO LIKE KINASE 1; PROTEIN KINASE B; PROTEIN KINASE B BETA; PROTEIN P53; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; CANCER COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURVIVAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; COPY NUMBER VARIATION; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE IDENTIFICATION; GENE INTERACTION; GENE TARGETING; GLIOBLASTOMA; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PLK1 GENE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SOMATIC MUTATION; SYNTHETIC SICKNESS OR LETHALITY; TP53 GENE;

COMBINATION THERAPY; GLIOBLASTOMA; SYNTHETIC SICKNESS OR LETHALITY;

ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; CELL CYCLE PROTEINS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DNA COPY NUMBER VARIATIONS; GENES, LETHAL; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; POINT MUTATION; PROGNOSIS; PROTEIN-SERINE-THREONINE KINASES; PROTO-ONCOGENE PROTEINS; PROTO-ONCOGENE PROTEINS C-AKT; RECEPTOR, EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR; SURVIVAL RATE; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR PROTEIN P53;

EID: 84882652197     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28235     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Force T, Kolaja KL,. Cardiotoxicity of kinase inhibitors: the prediction and translation of preclinical models to clinical outcomes. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011; 10: 111-26.
2. Diaz LA Jr, Williams RT, Wu J, et al. The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers. Nature 2012; 486: 537-40.
3. Misale S, Yaeger R, Hobor S, et al. Emergence of KRAS mutations and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. Nature 2012; 486: 1476-4687.
4. Ellis LM, Hicklin DJ,. Resistance to targeted therapies: refining anticancer therapy in the era of molecular oncology. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 7471-8.
5. Kaelin WG,. The concept of synthetic lethality in the context of anticancer Therapy. Nature Reviews Cancer 2005; 5: 689-98.
6. Ashworth A, Lord CJ, Reis-Filho JS,. Genetic interactions in cancer progression and treatment. Cell 2011; 145: 30-8.
7. Chan DA, Giaccia AJ,. Harnessing synthetic lethal interactions in anticancer drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011; 10: 351-64.
8. Costanzo M, Baryshnikova A, Bellay J, et al. The Genetic Landscape of a Cell. Science 2010; 327: 425-31.
9. Weidle UH, Maisel D, Eick D,. Synthetic lethality-based targets for discovery of new cancer therapeutics. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 2011; 8: 159-71.
10. Luo J, Emanuele MJ, Li D, et al. A Genome-wide RNAi Screen Identifies Multiple Synthetic Lethal Interactions with the Ras oncogene. Cell 2009; 137: 835-48.
11. Kim Y-W, Liu TJ, Koul D, et al. Identification of novel synergistic targets for rational drug combinations with PI3 kinase inhibitors using siRNA synthetic lethality screening against GBM. Neuro Oncol 2011; 13: 367-75.
12. Guo GS, Zhang FM, Gao RJ, et al. DNA repair and synthetic lethality. Int J Oral Sci 2011; 3: 176-9.
13. Moeller BJ, Arap W, Pasqualini R,. Targeting synthetic lethality in DNA damage repair pathways as an anti-cancer strategy. Curr Drug Targets 2010; 11: 1336-40.
14. Qi Y, Suhail Y, Lin Y-Y, et al. Finding friends and enemies in an enemies-only network: a graph diffusion kernel for predicting novel genetic interactions and co-complex membership from yeast genetic interactions. Genome Res 2008; 18: 1991-2004.
15. Paladugu S, Zhao S, Ray A, et al. Mining protein networks for synthetic genetic interactions. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9: 426.
16. Pandey G, Zhang B, Chang AN, et al. An integrative multi-network and multi-classifier approach to predict genetic interactions. PLoS Comput Biol 2010; 6: e1000928.
17. Wong SL, Zhang LV, Tong AHY, et al. Combining biological networks to predict genetic interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004; 101: 15682-7.
18. Dixon SJ, Costanzo M, Baryshnikova A, et al. Systematic mapping of genetic interaction networks. Annu Rev Genet 2009; 43: 601-25.
19. Jiang X, Neapolitan R, Barmada MM, et al. Learning genetic epistasis using Bayesian network scoring criteria. BMC Bioinformatics 2011; 12: 89.
20. Li J, Horstman B, Chen Y,. Detecting epistatic effects in association studies at a genomic level based on an ensemble approach. Bioinformatics 2011; 27: i222-i9.
21. Kam-Thong T, Pütz B, Karbalai N, et al. Epistasis detection on quantitative phenotypes by exhaustive enumeration using GPUs. Bioinformatics 2011; 27: i214-i21.
22. Conde-Pueyo N, Munteanu A, Sole R, et al. Human synthetic lethal inference as potential anti-cancer target gene detection. BMC Syst Biol 2009; 3: 116.
23. Boone C, Bussey H, Andrews BJ,. Exploring genetic interactions and networks with yeast. Nat Rev Genet 2007; 8: 437-49.
24. Ciriello G, Cerami EG, Sander C, et al. Mutual exclusivity analysis identifies oncogenic network modules. Genome Res 2012; 22: 398-406.
25. Ding L, Getz G, Wheeler DA, et al. Somatic mutations affect key pathways in lung adenocarcinoma. Nature 2008; 455: 1069-75.
26. Masica DL, Karchin R,. Correlation of somatic mutation and expression identifies genes important in human glioblastoma progression and survival. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 4550-61.
27. Miller C, Settle S, Sulman E, et al. Discovering functional modules by identifying recurrent and mutually exclusive mutational patterns in tumors. BMC Med Genom 2011; 4: 34.
28. Mischel P, Cloughesy T,. Targeted molecular therapy of GBM. Brain Pathol 2003; 13: 52-61.
29. TCGA. Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature 2008; 455: 1061-8.
30. Jacobsen A,. cgdsr: R-Based API for accessing the MSKCC Cancer Genomics Data Server (CGDS). R package version 1.1.13. Available at: http://CRAN.R- project.org/package=cgdsr, 2011.
31. Beroukhim R, Getz G, Nghiemphu L, et al. Assessing the significance of chromosomal aberrations in cancer: methodology and application to glioma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104: 20007-12.
32. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML,. Survival analysis: techniques for censored and truncated data, second ed. New York: Springer, 2003.
33. Kaplan EL, Meier P,. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53: 457-81.
34. Irwin JO,. The standard error of an estimate of expectation of life, with special reference to expectation of tumourless life in experiments with mice. J Hyg 1949; 47: 188-9.
35. Sur S, Pagliarini R, Bunz F, et al. A panel of isogenic human cancer cells suggests a therapeutic approach for cancers with inactivated p53. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106: 3964-9.
36. Michiue H, Eguchi A, Scadeng M, et al. Induction of in vivo synthetic lethal RNAi responses to treat glioblastoma. Cancer Biol Ther 2009; 8: 2306-13.
37. Cox DR,. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc Series B (Methodological) 1972; 32: 187-220.
38. Spotswood L, Spruance JER, Michael G, et al. Hazard ratio in clinical trials. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2004; 48: 2787-92.
39. Agresti A,. Categorical data analysis, Second edn., New York: Wiley, 2002.
40. Batchelor TT, Betensky RA, Esposito JM, et al. Age-dependent prognostic effects of genetic alterations in glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 228-33.
41. Breslow NE,. Analysis of survival data under the proportional hazards model. Int Stat Rev 1975; 43: 45-57.
42. Royston P, Parmar MKB,. The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt. Stat Med 2011; 30: 2409-21.
43. Vandin F, Upfal E, Raphael BJ,. De novo discovery of mutated driver pathways in cancer. Genome Res 2012; 22: 375-85.
44. Vandin F, Upfal E, Raphael BJ,. Algorithms for detecting significantly mutated pathways in cancer. J Comput Biol 2011; 18: 507-22.